karate or boxing strikes? well, the average student of boxing knows how to hit something solid without their structure buckleing...the average karateka student knows how to hit air without their ego buckleing.

Dan nice article indept and makes some good points. And goes back to the root of this debate foundation building of the application. If we talk about just punches gloved and taped boxing has the best & strongest punches. Bare fisted Karate has the best rsults when you include the safest strike of the delievery the punch. By the way love me some Oyama he was one of the 1st Mavericks!

There is no doubt in my mind that punching in gloves boxing method is simple and superior on the bag and in the ring. But bare fisted from my personal experience Karate strikes are safer and better, because they don't try to always punuch through the target all the times the dept of the strike is more controlled and precise.

As in the long time debate in boxing, Is the padded gloves more to protect the strikers hands or the opponent? The tapped hand is definitely for the striker safety it adds support and protection for the striker.

Karate the way (dare I say) it's really suppose to be used doesn't use or require this artifical supprot or protection.

Ed personally if Karate is studied (dare I say again) correctly it should be as fluids as boxing from strikes to kicks to sweep stomps.

A boxer once stated after cross training in Karate that. That Karate was 90% hype and 10% effective. Something like that, of course I disagree.

Here I go with another story, sharing space at a boxing gym we come in the boxers are looking over their shoulders and smiling hitting the heavy bag more vigoriously. After watching me spar one of my Black belts (that uses boxing movement) and he is grabbed swept and barely dodging heel stomped he caught by a solid punch to the head. The boxers stare at their bags an stop hitting it as vigorously the defiant smiles are gones, they are wide eyed. They want no parts of that except for the few that want to learn.

Boxing is a good base to build from but Karate is far from just air punching, as you well Know. Might just be me, but I'd rather build from wider view then a narrow one.

Boxing has less total strikes than Karate. However, boxing's fewer strikes are often trained to a much higher level of real-world effectiveness, by the very nature of it's training (ie, bag-work and sparring).

Karate people that train with an equivalent level of resistance should have an advantage, due to greater variety in striking options and targets.

Ultimately, it's not a case of this or that is better, but rather how it's trained. In the real world, boxers generally have the advantage.

_________________________"In case you ever wondered what it's like to be knocked out, it's like waking up from a nightmare only to discover it wasn't a dream." -Forrest Griffin

Dan, I have to say that, although i think this article was well written, there are some potential issues here. This is going to be a long post, but I feel that you have obviously worked hard on the article, and I would be doing a disservice not to quote from it.

You state that:

Quote:However as any senior karateka will tell you, the karate hip chamber is just a basic or “ideal” posture that allows a punch to be “fully loaded” for practise. It is not how the technique will necessarily look in combat.

If the chambered position is not how the technique will look in combat, then why is it an "ideal"? Would not the best training methodology be based on learning how strike from a more pragmatic and common hand position?

You say:

Quote:Jabs are principally straight line techniques; their only real distinction from a basic karate punch is the point of origin (in karate this is at the hip, while in boxing this is from a guard position).

Then you say:

Quote:What people seem to regard as the main distinction between the boxing jab and the kizami zuki is that the former is usually performed with a retraction or snap-back, where the latter is not [...] For a start, the retraction of your arm is largely irrelevant to the nature and effect of a punch . A snap-back in no way boosts outward speed.

Actually, this shows that the boxing jab and the "standard karate punch" are essientially very, very diffirent. You are trying to posit that each are on the same level because the retraction does not develop speed. However, the boxer does not retract his jab quickly for speed. He does so because the jab is usually a set up for something else. This highlights a MAJOR strategic diffrence between this punches, as well as a diffirent way of throwing them. In fact, these punches seem to have nothing in common, at least from the way you have described them here.

You essientially imply this key distiction with the next section (The Follow Through):

Quote: With the exception of jabs, boxers don’t attempt to stop their punches at a predetermined point. Instead they adopt a “follow-through” to their punches.

Already you are showing a major strategic difference between boxing and karate. The follow-through makes the rapid snap-back needed for the SPEED of the techniques that will follow. So your ascertion that the snap back does not help speed, seems to be only taking into account the single punch, not the combination that the jab is setting up.

Quote:As you can tell from the description and the picture above, the punch ideally follows a straight line in order to prevent interception or evasion; after all, the shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line .

I hear this equation often regarding that effiency of the straigh punch. However, what it leaves out is the face that your opponent, in a resistent setting, is a moving one. That being the case, it is far more efficient to curve the punch in order to hit your opponent, rather than retract the hand and throw again. If the two points were stationary, then, yes, this type of equation may work. But it doesn't work when the two points are moving indeterminently. The reason why

Quote: boxers don’t attempt to stop their own punches at a predetermined point

is because in actual moving combat, resistent fighting, ascertaining an exact "predetermined point" is extremely difficult.

Again, this goes to highlight the major differences in boxing and karate striking. Karate seems to assume an somewhat stationary attacker (don't beleive me? look at the 'ideal' scenrios in bunkai applications, including the video you posted on your blog). Boxing is developed to deal with a quick opponent, who needs to be hit hard in non-ideal positions( again for reference, look at the boxing vids you posted on your site).

This is fundemental difference in underlying strategy, and leads many to question the ability of karate to deal with a fully resisting attacker/opponent.

You also state:

Quote:It is my view that “kime” or focus theoretically produces a more efficient punch.

This is true under the conditions you are conducting your 'experiment'. However, theory and practice are two diffirent things. Once we input the variable of a moving, resisting opponent, the idea of leaving a punch out there (thus making it take longer to throw the next punch), leads one to question the ascertion that this punch is more 'efficient'. In order for a punch to be efficent, it must hit the target. The most efficient punch is the one that hits the target the most times, not only the one that requires "less work". I could easily throw punches that, by your criteria (of less physical effort), are more "efficient" than either the karate or boxing punch. But if they do no damage, or don't hit the opponent, or put me in a better position to strike a second time, what good is it towards its actual purpose (fighting)? Again, the most efficient punch is the one that takes the least effort to hit the target.

A theme throughout your article is that when you talk about the karate punch, you seem to be making the assumption that one punch will end the altercation/fight. This is very faulty logic. As I showed above in this article you've demonstrated how the karate punch is thrown under the assumption of a one punch knockout/ end to altercation occuring. Therefore it is highly, as you put it, "focused". The boxer does not make this assumption, and his techniques bear witness to this: a fight may take many punches to end, and he shoudl be prepared and able to throw them with maximal balance between accuracy/power/speed/effort exerted.

The "focus", which you seem to judge the merit of karate on, is also present in boxing: it is only that it is balanced by the other factors I have written above. The focus is, indeed, maximal, if the ends (a resolution to the engagement) are acheieved.

Quote:As I noted above, in order to make boxing blows more powerful you have to have some follow-through, meaning some element of curve. This increases momentum significantly. But it also increases the overall “flight time” of your blow, hence making it easier to intercept or evade.

This is wrong. You are, here, only talking about the right cross and the hooking punches. The jab can be thrown very quickly. In fact, I don't think anyone in their right minds believes that they can intercept a good boxers jab. Going back to my intial point, the jab is used as a setup for these other punches.

Quote:It also leaves a larger opening.

See comment above. Also, I'm reminded of when you said:

Quote:main distinction between the boxing jab and the kizami zuki is that the former is usually performed with a retraction or snap-back, where the latter is not .

If this is being used as your set-up doesn't it, by your own logic, leave one more open? I then have to say that it's my opinion that the karate style of striking leaves one "more open", because of an over reliance on the first strike landing.

Quote: Hitting someone with a less than optimally powerful blow in boxing is problematic; you’ve wasted an opportunity to land a knockout and your gloved fists will ensure that its effect is reduced even more.

This just shows a shallow understanding of boxing strategy. Boxers do not only throw 'power bombs' with every strike!

As for the paragraph the begins with:

Quote:On the flip side, hitting someone with a less than optimally powerful blow in self-defence might be all that is needed.

Do you honestly not think that boxers have the ability to alter the depth of their strikes to suit the situation? You seem to making an assumption here that a boxer will fight on the street the same way he does in the ring.

Quote: However by the same token, just because civilian defence systems like karate are not suitable for use in a combat sports ring does not mean they are not fit for their purpose.

That's well and good. I don't think anyone is stating catagorically that karate won't work on the street. But here's the thing, based on your own article, you admit that it

Quote: one training in boxing punches and one training in karate punches, then after one or 2 years the boxer would probably generate both more visible force and more applied force

If this is so, doesn't boxing stand as the better path to self defence skills? A boxer only improves after those two years--it's not like he stagnates.

I agree that karate can work, given enough time, on the street. However, boxing works on the street and in the ring. Boxing, on average, beats karate in a one on one match. Also, boxing is as as adaptable to a street situation as any other martial art.

All in all, Dan, although I think this article was a nice try, I think it suffers from numerous problems. It certainly does not make clear on any level why karate would be the better art to study.

I think you are miss John's point about 'delivery system' as well. The best delivery system is the one that holds up best under all conditions. Saying that "just because civilian defence systems like karate are not suitable for use in a combat sports ring does not mean they are not fit for their purpose," is a red herring. "Combat sports" are ways of training a delivry system in as close to a realistic way as one can get.

If what you are doing can not 'hang' with those delivry systems, then yours simply cannot be proven to be as effective.

Outside of proof in a realistic, highly resistent atomesphere, all else is mere theory.

not to put words in dan's mouth, but i think i can answer one of your questions.

you said:"Already you are showing a major strategic difference between boxing and karate. The follow-through makes the rapid snap-back needed for the SPEED of the techniques that will follow. So your ascertion that the snap back does not help speed, seems to be only taking into account the single punch, not the combination that the jab is setting up."

quick reteactions will let you throw punches in faster combinations, and if you want to spend time toe to toe unloading on your target, then thats the way for you hands down. if your using your karate studies for self defence then punching can take on a different role in the fight. the punch can strike on "a funny angle" to off ballance, then it grabs and pushes or pulls into a throw, sweep or trip. so instead of a 3 punch combination, you can use a punch, shove, trip.

so, its about different strategy. you can't use it in a boxing ring because of the rules, but outside no one has a pentent on it. tersm like effecient and effective are situational, like every freaking thing....

Quote:Dan, I have to say that, although i think this article was well written, there are some potential issues here. This is going to be a long post, but I feel that you have obviously worked hard on the article, and I would be doing a disservice not to quote from it.

Thanks for reading and for your time.

Quote:If the chambered position is not how the technique will look in combat, then why is it an "ideal"? Would not the best training methodology be based on learning how strike from a more pragmatic and common hand position?

"Ideal" is a reference to loading for power. In other words if you had a sitting duck opponent and you wanted maximum load on your karate reverse punch, you would load it to the hip. You never get the chance to effect an "ideal load" in combat. In other words, I'm using the term "ideal" differently from you. I'm talking about a hypothetical "ideal" - not "ideal for combat".

Quote:Actually, this shows that the boxing jab and the "standard karate punch" are essientially very, very diffirent. You are trying to posit that each are on the same level because the retraction does not develop speed. However, the boxer does not retract his jab quickly for speed. He does so because the jab is usually a set up for something else. This highlights a MAJOR strategic diffrence between this punches, as well as a diffirent way of throwing them. In fact, these punches seem to have nothing in common, at least from the way you have described them here.

Karate does exactly the same - retracts for a set up. I mention this in my article when I say that "in combinations the whole issue is irrelevant". In other words, when you are "setting up" you're going to be retracting anyway.

Quote:Already you are showing a major strategic difference between boxing and karate. The follow-through makes the rapid snap-back needed for the SPEED of the techniques that will follow. So your ascertion that the snap back does not help speed, seems to be only taking into account the single punch, not the combination that the jab is setting up.

I don't see how the follow through on a cross makes another punch faster. If you mean that the jab makes the cross faster, well that's true. But it is true in karate as well. This is basic human biomechanics shared by any punching art.

Quote:I hear this equation often regarding that effiency of the straigh punch. However, what it leaves out is the face that your opponent, in a resistent setting, is a moving one. That being the case, it is far more efficient to curve the punch in order to hit your opponent, rather than retract the hand and throw again. If the two points were stationary, then, yes, this type of equation may work. But it doesn't work when the two points are moving indeterminently. The reason why

Quote: boxers don’t attempt to stop their own punches at a predetermined point

is because in actual moving combat, resistent fighting, ascertaining an exact "predetermined point" is extremely difficult.

Nothing in my experience suggests that kime/focus doesn't work in a moving environment. I've been known to curve my blow to keep up with movement, but in most cases the speed of an exchange makes my punch land where I want it and where I expected it. If it doesn't I've missed - but that happens with everyone, boxer, karateka - you name it.

Quote:Again, this goes to highlight the major differences in boxing and karate striking. Karate seems to assume an somewhat stationary attacker (don't beleive me? look at the 'ideal' scenrios in bunkai applications, including the video you posted on your blog). Boxing is developed to deal with a quick opponent, who needs to be hit hard in non-ideal positions( again for reference, look at the boxing vids you posted on your site).

Bunkai is static practise. I have long maintained that it is just the beginning of karate practise. We apply our applications in dynamic environments ranging from 2 person forms to restricted sparring to ultimately free sparring. Don't believe me? Have a look at some of my other videos. Better yet, go and train with my teacher's teacher Morio Higaonna who is frequently in the US (or his North American representative Nakamura) and do some sparring with their students. They'll apply their "theoretical" bunkai to you in a very dynamic environment, thank you very much.

Quote:This is true under the conditions you are conducting your 'experiment'. However, theory and practice are two diffirent things. Once we input the variable of a moving, resisting opponent, the idea of leaving a punch out there (thus making it take longer to throw the next punch), leads one to question the ascertion that this punch is more 'efficient'. In order for a punch to be efficent, it must hit the target. The most efficient punch is the one that hits the target the most times, not only the one that requires "less work". I could easily throw punches that, by your criteria (of less physical effort), are more "efficient" than either the karate or boxing punch. But if they do no damage, or don't hit the opponent, or put me in a better position to strike a second time, what good is it towards its actual purpose (fighting)? Again, the most efficient punch is the one that takes the least effort to hit the target.

Karate punches use far less effort - but they are harder to master and apply. So in a sense I agree with you. What I don't agree is that they are just "theoretical". My article expresses in physics terms what I have experienced in reality. Again, I suggest you visit the gentlemen I refer to above to see it applied in practise.

Quote:A theme throughout your article is that when you talk about the karate punch, you seem to be making the assumption that one punch will end the altercation/fight.

Whoa! How in the world did you get that from my article? I've NEVER advocated "ikken hitsatsu" (the theory to which you refer).

Quote:The "focus", which you seem to judge the merit of karate on, is also present in boxing: it is only that it is balanced by the other factors I have written above. The focus is, indeed, maximal, if the ends (a resolution to the engagement) are acheieved.

If you read my article again you'll notice that I say all fighters must have focus. It is a matter of degree. Karateka try to achieve a more specific level of focus. The differences are probably quite slight in physics terms but make a difference in tactics.

Quote:This [some boxing punches have a curve] is wrong. You are, here, only talking about the right cross and the hooking punches.

Indeed. That's precisely why this analysis occurs under the heading "follow-through punches". I deal with jabs in the paragraph above that one under the heading "Jabs".

Quote: The jab can be thrown very quickly. In fact, I don't think anyone in their right minds believes that they can intercept a good boxers jab.

You're kidding right? Because I intercept jabs routinely - I have done so against more than a few boxers. I suggest you revisit this. Just because you haven't done it or seen it done doesn't mean it can't be done. We discussed this fully in the "Why blocks DO work" thread and I'm not going over it again. A good karateka practises for this. I'd be happy to demonstrate it for you personally except that I'm on the other side of the world.

Quote:I then have to say that it's my opinion that the karate style of striking leaves one "more open", because of an over reliance on the first strike landing.

This isn't part of karate theory. It might be what you've seen but it isn't good karate. Most Okinawan styles don't believe in ikken hitsatsu (one punch certain defeat). This is a relatively modern insertion from mainland Japan and reflects their sword culture. It has diluted much of karate, but nothing in standard karate theory relies or expects this.

Quote:This just shows a shallow understanding of boxing strategy. Boxers do not only throw 'power bombs' with every strike!

I wasn't suggesting it! Some boxing punches are clearly less powerful than others. But you don't try to use any of them half-heartedly. However in karate there are many techniques (clawing movements or eye gouges being just 2) that don't require any real "force" except in the fingers. As for "shallow understanding" - that's uncalled for. I have more understanding about boxing than you realise. The fact that I can't qualify every single statement in an article (I have to make some collective statements somewhere in order to avoid writing a book), and the fact that my comments are taken out of context, does not qualify my knowledge as "shallow".

Quote:Do you honestly not think that boxers have the ability to alter the depth of their strikes to suit the situation? You seem to making an assumption here that a boxer will fight on the street the same way he does in the ring.

I never made any such assumption. As I said above all fighters must focus; what I'm referring to in my article are small differences of degree.

Quote:If this is so [boxing produces greater power sooner], doesn't boxing stand as the better path to self defence skills? A boxer only improves after those two years--it's not like he stagnates.

This is all well and fine if you think I'm arguing that karate is necessarily better than boxing or vice versa. I'm offering a description of the differences in their "delivery systems" and explaining that boxing places a premium on hitting harder. I then explain why karate doesn't have the same emphasis. My positive comments about boxing were honest and, on this forum, constitute a kind of olive branch. I didn't expect you to take that branch and try to hit me with it. If you're happy with boxing that's good. I hoped you'd get some idea of why karateka prefer their approach but you don't seem to accept any aspect of the reasoning. So be it. I don't imagine you'll give karateka any respect for their choice until you train with some tough ones like the gentlemen I mentioned. You probably won't change your own choice of fighting system but I guarantee you won't be as dismissive of their abilities against "resistance".

Quote:I agree that karate can work, given enough time, on the street. However, boxing works on the street and in the ring. Boxing, on average, beats karate in a one on one match. Also, boxing is as as adaptable to a street situation as any other martial art.

Boxing beats karate in one on one? Nice one. Proof please. I always felt it depended on the individual. Like I say, you obviously haven't trained with any good karateka.

Quote:All in all, Dan, although I think this article was a nice try, I think it suffers from numerous problems. It certainly does not make clear on any level why karate would be the better art to study.

All in all Chris I have to thank you for reading my article and contributing to the debate. However I must point out something fundamental; I was not attempting to prove "why karate would be the better art to study". I have offered some reasons why karateka do what they do. You don't appear to accept that the karate approach has any benefit, where I accept that boxing works.

Quote:I think you are miss John's point about 'delivery system' as well. The best delivery system is the one that holds up best under all conditions. Saying that "just because civilian defence systems like karate are not suitable for use in a combat sports ring does not mean they are not fit for their purpose," is a red herring. "Combat sports" are ways of training a delivry system in as close to a realistic way as one can get.

My article in no way canvassed the requirement of "realism in training". It focussed on describing the mechanics of the punch. If John uses "delivery system" to mean more than the mechanics but also the training methods etc. then so be it. I've separated the 2 because, as I've said to John in the past, we can all agree on the need for resistance training but still disagree as to our preferred mechanical approach. I've tried to focus on the latter only. Why? Because there has been a suggestion that there is only set of "mechanics" - the human kind. To me this results from a misunderstanding of tma and I've tried to address that - not criticise boxing or any other art. Clearly I prefer what I do. I wouldn't do it otherwise. I'm offering reasons for why I like it (for combat) knowing full well that it might never appeal to someone else. Saying "I like bananas because they are sweet and full of minerals like magnesium" doesn't mean that apples are no good or that you'll like bananas.

Quote:If what you are doing can not 'hang' with those delivry systems, then yours simply cannot be proven to be as effective.

Outside of proof in a realistic, highly resistent atomesphere, all else is mere theory.

When you've trained with some of the gentlemen to whom I refer (instead of comparing the average boxer, who is geared for contact, to the multitude of suburban people who do a diluted form of karate just for recreation) then your comments will also succeed in being more than just theory. It isn't theory to me. And I resent the insinuation that I've made my choices just because I believe blindly in a "theory". Do you really think that I haven't had some broader experiences in the last 30 years?

Quote:I'm talking about a hypothetical "ideal" - not "ideal for combat".

Right. And this is exactly my point. NOT an ideal for combat, but rather for some 'hypothetical ideal'. Yet, this article is about karate as a delivery system for combat is it not? That's why I don't really understand why this is ideal at all? In what hypothetical situation is this ideal for, if not combat? The dojo?

Quote:Karate does exactly the same - retracts for a set up. I mention this in my article when I say that "in combinations the whole issue is irrelevant". In other words, when you are "setting up" you're going to be retracting anyway.

You do say that, but in the overall context you also state that the punch is generally not practiced in this way (though, in fairness, you do say that it should be practiced this way more often). You state that: " non-retracting thrusts are principally used in karate as a training tool for developing and perfecting focus." This is exactly the problem that I see with this type of training. It goes back to your 'hypothetical ideal', meaning that a percentage of training time is not involved in drilling technique that is not applicable to actual combat. I think an argument could be made that the method of drilling you refer to, that which does not have a " rigid adherence to basic form", is actually a borrowed principle from a boxing influence. That is why it is not contained in the forms.

Quote: I don't see how the follow through on a cross makes another punch faster[...]

That's not my point at all. My point is that boxing is trained the way it is because it works largely by combination, not singular attack. Therefore it's a misnomer when you state that "a snap-back in no way boosts outward speed". This is a strawman. You use the speed argument to imply that the karate punch is just as valid, even in its traditional use where it is not rapidly retracted, because greater speed is not generated anyway. Boxing is retracting for set up, not speed. As the article continues, and from your clarification on your last post, you make clear the need for this retraction to set up combinations. If this is so, why bother writing all that came before. You seem to be attempting to 'mount two horses' here, making two seperate arguments.

Quote:Nothing in my experience suggests that kime/focus doesn't work in a moving environment[...]

No one is saying that focus doesn't work against a moving opponent. I am arguing against the implication that the fact that boxing punch has less kime makes it somehow not as subtle, and efficient. Boxing, as you say, also has focus. What I AM saying is that karate the argument could be made that karate over relies on kime. This is one reason why it doesn't work so well in a combat sport environment. Those karateka that do do well in these environment usually have boxing hands. There is a reason for this, and I think it is largely the over reliance of kime, which often (but not always) telegraphs the punch, and generally makes it so that there is more time until the next one is thrown.

Quote:Bunkai is static practise. I have long maintained that it is just the beginning of karate practise. We apply our applications in dynamic environments ranging from 2 person forms to restricted sparring to ultimately free sparring. Don't believe me? Have a look at some of my other videos. Better yet, go and train with my teacher's teacher Morio Higaonna who is frequently in the US (or his North American representative Nakamura) and do some sparring with their students

This is funny because I have trained with Nakamura, at his dojo in Burlington, Ont. Not for long though. I didn't like what I saw (including his higher ranked black belts). Again, I actually can't get over the irony here, because it was specifically his class that I was thinking of when I wrote what I did.

Further, this doesn't detract from what I'm saying in the slightest anyway. The early stages of bunkai (the first five years!) are largely static attacks. The IOGKF is a good organization, and they do practice resisitent sparring, so I'll give them that. However, I personally think that alot of time is wasted with this early level of training. No one (except other karateka) attack like that! Again, this goes back to your 'hypothetical ideal', which you posit throughout your article. So much of your argument is based on this hypothetical that it makes one wonder what the actual relivence of all this type of training is to combat. This goes back to the early disscusion in this thread, regarding kata (which was never well explained). Maybe the reason why a boxer is able to use his art so quickly is because he doesn't waste his time with these kinds of drills? This has been my point all along.

Boxing trains more relistically than Traditional Karate. Therefore the strikes have more functional ablity.Which is also why I find your constant emphasis on the effiency of the karate strike, when the art itself is very ineffecient. You yourself say that this is a "civilian defence system", why take so long to build powerful defence skills then?

Quote:Karate punches use far less effort - but they are harder to master and apply. So in a sense I agree with you. What I don't agree is that they are just "theoretical". My article expresses in physics terms what I have experienced in reality. Again, I suggest you visit the gentlemen I refer to above to see it applied in practise

I gave some pretty good reasons why this is just not so. The conditions of your 'experiment' are just plain wrong. The 'physics terms' you are using do not include key variables (such as a moving opponent).

Also, your being disingenious here. My whole point was that the physical energy exerted does not make a much 'more efficient. The defintion of efficient is :" Acting or producing effectively with a minimum of waste, expense, or unnecessary effort. The most efficent punch is not only that which requires a minimum of "unnecessary effort" but the one that 'produces effectively'--i.e. makes contact the most regularly. In order for your experiment to have any true scientific merit (and not be the pseudo-science it currently is), you would actually need karateka, who are trained in your method vs. boxers, and then tally the amount of hits they scored on one another. Without this, your experiment is, again, missing key variables and all the physics language and diagrams in the world won't make up for this.

Quote: Whoa! How in the world did you get that from my article? I've NEVER advocated "ikken hitsatsu" (the theory to which you refer).

No. And I NEVER said you used those words either. But you did write:

Quote:By contrast, a large part of a karateka’s training is, just like a sword practitioner’s , necessarily devoted to honing maximally efficient “kime” or focus via an endless repetition of “cut-like” blows

The sword is exactly where the concept of ikken hitsatsu originated. Or as you say in YOUR OWN POST "This is a relatively modern insertion from mainland Japan and reflects their sword culture." So, though you are not specifically talking about this, you are indeed talking about something which, seems to refer to something similar.

You also state that "hitting someone with a less than optimally powerful blow in self-defence might be all that is needed". That's what I was refering to here. You are implying that a one punch solution may be all that's needed.

Quote:Indeed. That's precisely why this analysis occurs under the heading "follow-through punches". I deal with jabs in the paragraph above that one under the heading "Jabs".

Dan, this really bothered me, because you are misquoting me in that quote you attribute to me. When in the brackets you change my wording to say that "some boxing punches have a curve" you are implying that you yourself said such. You did no such thing. You specifically state (and I'll quote again, and bold again):

Quote:As I noted above, in order to make boxing blows more powerful you have to have some follow-through, meaning some element of curve.

Also, this does not come from your section "follow-through punches" at all. It comes from the section "Which is better". A very big difference wouldn't you say. This is indeed meant to be an overall description of boxing. Anyone reading the article would see this plain as day.

Quote: You're kidding right? Because I intercept jabs routinely - I have done so against more than a few boxers. I suggest you revisit this. Just because you haven't done it or seen it done doesn't mean it can't be done.

Yeah, I've done it to, probably in the same scenrio you have, we are told by sensei to throw a boxing jab. Sure, Aikidoka love this stuff. But there's a big difference between a fairly poorly executed boxers jab done in this context and one done by a boxer (who had fought in the ring). Please tell when you have done this, against a GOOD boxer, in an environment outside a karate dojo.

I'd like to see some video evidence of this please Dan. If not you doing it, then someone. My guess is that this is not happening in free style scenrio against a good boxer. What gives credence to this is that you would

Quote:be happy to demonstrate it for you personally except that I'm on the other side of the world.

I'm not a professional boxer, Dan. Do you think my mind would be changed just because you, who has two decades more training than me, can intercept one of my messily jabs? That proves absolutely nothing.

If this kind of thing were as common and 'trainable' as you are suggesting, then I'd think by know boxers, or MMA fighters would be training these interceptions.

Further an 8th dan Aikido sensei told me (and keep in mind that all Aikido does is practice interception) that intercepting a jab was pretty much impossible. Gozo Shioda, 10th dan, and highly respected TMA practioner, pretty much says the same thing in "Aikido Shugyo'. So no, I'm not "kidding" and the burden of proof is on you here, Dan.

Quote: This isn't part of karate theory.

Then what is the physical effect of karate kime then? It often results in a punch which 'hangs' in the air between making contact (or missing) and being retracted.

Here is a video clip of Higaonna, whom you have said is basically the emptomy of good karate. Note between 1:10 and 1:30, especially at 1:12, and you will clearly see just what I'm talking about here.

Quote:However in karate there are many techniques (clawing movements or eye gouges being just 2) that don't require any real "force" except in the fingers. As for "shallow understanding" -

Here is the real heart of what I'm arguing against. See, all these techniques deal in a theoritical outcome, because they cannot be used in an alive manner. In other words, you can't actually eyegouge your training partner, and therefore you are theorising what the outcome of the eyegouge may be. I worked as a bouncer for two years. I've been eyegouged. Aside from making me a little angry, making my eyeball burn a bit, it did rather little. Again, if you can't practice it against resistence, you have no concrete proof of its outcome. This is what I mean when I say that you are dealing with far too many hypotheticals to 'prove' anything.

Quote:and the fact that my comments are taken out of context

Absolutly ridiculous! I took great pains to quote you in context. I've shown how you have not done the same for me. If your article is not conotating what you want, then I think the fault lies more likely with the author (you). There are numerous holes in it.

Quote: Boxing beats karate in one on one? Nice one. Proof please. I always felt it depended on the individual. Like I say, you obviously haven't trained with any good karateka.

How about K-1? Where boxing hands have dominated for sometiem know over tradional karate hand techniques.

Quote:You don't appear to accept that the karate approach has any benefit, where I accept that boxing works.

Who is taking who out of context. I specifically said that "I agree that karate can work, given enough time, on the street".

Quote: When you've trained with some of the gentlemen to whom I refer (instead of comparing the average boxer, who is geared for contact, to the multitude of suburban people who do a diluted form of karate just for recreation) then your comments will also succeed in being more than just theory

I did train with one of them (Nakamura)(and again not for very long). Now go spar an amateur boxer, lol.

Anyway I didn't need to train under Nakamura and your constant suggestion for me to meet you face to face, or to meet so and so, only helps my argument that your article does not do well to articulate any point aside from: 'Karate may help you defend youself against an untrained attacker'.

--Chris

Edited by Ames (11/08/0803:45 AM)

_________________________
"Seek not to follow in the footsteps of the men of old; seek what they sought."--Basho

Quote:Right. And this is exactly my point. NOT an ideal for combat, but rather for some 'hypothetical ideal'. Yet, this article is about karate as a delivery system for combat is it not? That's why I don't really understand why this is ideal at all? In what hypothetical situation is this ideal for, if not combat? The dojo?

This is tiresome. I was referring to an optimum load. In my article on Chambers you will read that karate practises basics from an optimum load for the sake of executing a full movement (like a full katana cut). In practise this might well be shorter, but so be it. There is no issue here other than that you seem to have no idea of the extended argument I'm making.

Quote:You do say that, but in the overall context you also state that the punch is generally not practiced in this way (though, in fairness, you do say that it should be practiced this way more often). You state that: " non-retracting thrusts are principally used in karate as a training tool for developing and perfecting focus." This is exactly the problem that I see with this type of training. It goes back to your 'hypothetical ideal', meaning that a percentage of training time is not involved in drilling technique that is not applicable to actual combat. I think an argument could be made that the method of drilling you refer to, that which does not have a " rigid adherence to basic form", is actually a borrowed principle from a boxing influence. That is why it is not contained in the forms.

Again you are talking about time spent doing "realistic" training. I wasn't addressing this issue at all. If you are determined to put down karate, you can pursue this idea. However I can tell you that time spent on basics (in karate this means learning kime) is time well spent in the long run. If I were training for combat tomorrow I might not do it. There is no debate here other than a fight about boxing being better than karate which you are determined to pick.

Quote:My point is that boxing is trained the way it is because it works largely by combination, not singular attack. Therefore it's a misnomer when you state that "a snap-back in no way boosts outward speed". This is a strawman.

It's a strawman if it is being used to criticise boxing jabs. I never said that, nor was it implied. Any implication to that effect is in your mind. I actually made the point that karate punches and jabs are actually very similar - probably identical in the combat execution (jabs being straight line movement). This comment was intended as a reference to criticisms for karate "leaving the hand in" - something people assume from basic kime practise (and something that ignores karate combinations when the entire issue of "snapback" becomes completely irrelevant.

Quote: You use the speed argument to imply that the karate punch is just as valid, even in its traditional use where it is not rapidly retracted, because greater speed is not generated anyway. Boxing is retracting for set up, not speed. As the article continues, and from your clarification on your last post, you make clear the need for this retraction to set up combinations. If this is so, why bother writing all that came before. You seem to be attempting to 'mount two horses' here, making two seperate arguments.

Straight thrusts are often used as an equivalent to a power blow (the cross) which is at the end of a set up. Either way, you confuse learning "kime" in basic practise (which is important in karate) with its application (which is generally - in my art of goju anyway) in combinations. Why not just do combinations? Because karateka start with basic thrusts to learn kime.

Quote:No one is saying that focus doesn't work against a moving opponent. I am arguing against the implication that the fact that boxing punch has less kime makes it somehow not as subtle, and efficient. Boxing, as you say, also has focus. What I AM saying is that karate the argument could be made that karate over relies on kime. This is one reason why it doesn't work so well in a combat sport environment. Those karateka that do do well in these environment usually have boxing hands. There is a reason for this, and I think it is largely the over reliance of kime, which often (but not always) telegraphs the punch, and generally makes it so that there is more time until the next one is thrown.

The above assumptions about karate show your own very shallow knowledge about its application. Sport karate and recreation karate might well telegraph things. There is nothing "telegraphic" about karate. As for boxing having kime - it does, but I suggest you try to execute a karate punch before you think you can "stop" a punch as fast (and I have explained the physics so I'm not wrong about this aspect). The only point where you start to make some sense is when you argue that karateka overstress kime in favour of more combat oriented training methods. Here you are probably right. However if you've followed all my posts up to his point and my articles you'll notice that I've never sought to argue the "superiority" of karate and acknowledge that it is a "long path". I've been in no rush, so it has suited me. I never said it should suit you. If you stop being so argumentative you might realise this.

Quote:This is funny because I have trained with Nakamura, at his dojo in Burlington, Ont. Not for long though. I didn't like what I saw (including his higher ranked black belts). Again, I actually can't get over the irony here, because it was specifically his class that I was thinking of when I wrote what I did.

Yes - you probably did some white belt training. Did you spar with his senior students who, by your reasoning, must be completely worthless in combat? I never said they would "beat you" - but I don't know many who have come away from Higaonna's dojo (myself included) who haven't understood how effective he and his style can be.

Quote:Further, this doesn't detract from what I'm saying in the slightest anyway. The early stages of bunkai (the first five years!) are largely static attacks. The IOGKF is a good organization, and they do practice resisitent sparring, so I'll give them that. However, I personally think that alot of time is wasted with this early level of training. No one (except other karateka) attack like that!

Well again you've made a point about how "bad" karate training is when my post concerned the mechanics of punching. Yes it takes a long time and it isn't suitable for quick self defence. Who says it is? Not suitable for self defence at all? That's another story.

Quote: Again, this goes back to your 'hypothetical ideal', which you posit throughout your article.

Are you not reading what I wrote? I was referring to an optimum load on a particular punch - not any "ideal combat technique". I wasn't addressing the concept of "realism" - just the biggest load you can muster on the reverse punch. The biggest load on a right cross is also possible but unlikely - you implement something smaller. But do you do a half-ar$ed hit on the bag or do you load fully?

Quote:I gave some pretty good reasons why this is just not so. The conditions of your 'experiment' are just plain wrong. The 'physics terms' you are using do not include key variables (such as a moving opponent).

Quote:The sword is exactly where the concept of ikken hitsatsu originated. Or as you say in YOUR OWN POST "This is a relatively modern insertion from mainland Japan and reflects their sword culture." So, though you are not specifically talking about this, you are indeed talking about something which, seems to refer to something similar.

Equating the kime practise of sword cutting and karate punching does not mean you expect the same result my friend. Blind Freddy can tell you that a sword is FAR more deadly. The karateka uses conservative straight punches knowing they are not as powerful as curved punches; so he/she tries to make them as powerful as they can be. It doesn't mean he imagines they are like sword cuts (as people in some mainland dojos started believing, modelling their sparring and competition on this concept).

Quote:You also state that "hitting someone with a less than optimally powerful blow in self-defence might be all that is needed". That's what I was refering to here. You are implying that a one punch solution may be all that's needed.

Don't know what you're reading. It just goes to show that you can and will read practically anything into what I say. There is nothing in my article to suggest that one "less than powerful technique" will win a fight. But give you a chance to do something else, then something else (including escape)? Very different point to what you think I'm saying.

Quote:Also, this does not come from your section "follow-through punches" at all. It comes from the section "Which is better". A very big difference wouldn't you say. This is indeed meant to be an overall description of boxing. Anyone reading the article would see this plain as day.

Maybe that's where I put it, but there is no suggestion (reading the entire article) that I felt ALL boxing punches are curved. By the time I made that reference I was talking about power punches - and given that I inserted those other headings much later (at first there were only 2 - jabs and follow through) AND the fact that I wrote it at breakneck speed, you'll forgive me if it's not perfect.

Quote:Yeah, I've done it to, probably in the same scenrio you have, we are told by sensei to throw a boxing jab. Sure, Aikidoka love this stuff. But there's a big difference between a fairly poorly executed boxers jab done in this context and one done by a boxer (who had fought in the ring). Please tell when you have done this, against a GOOD boxer, in an environment outside a karate dojo.

I've been challenged by more than a few good boxers to prove this point.

Quote:I'd like to see some video evidence of this please Dan. If not you doing it, then someone. My guess is that this is not happening in free style scenrio against a good boxer.

I have some video - but it's unlikely to satisfy you because it wasn't intended as proof. Look it up. It's not hard to find. Otherwise I'm not trying to convince you. It's just that you'll not convince me that "jabs can't be intercepted". BTW - I can't do it EVERY time - but who can evade EVERY punch? You get hit sooner or later. I'm not arguing a "checkmate" answer - merely countering your assertion of "impossibility".

Quote:Who is taking who out of context. I specifically said that "I agree that karate can work, given enough time, on the street".

When those words are reflected in your writing, I'll believe them. For now all I see is disdain.

Quote: When you've trained with some of the gentlemen to whom I refer (instead of comparing the average boxer, who is geared for contact, to the multitude of suburban people who do a diluted form of karate just for recreation) then your comments will also succeed in being more than just theory

Quote:I did train with one of them (Nakamura)(and again not for very long). Now go spar an amateur boxer, lol.

Anyway I didn't need to train under Nakamura and your constant suggestion for me to meet you face to face, or to meet so and so, only helps my argument that your article does not do well to articulate any point aside from: 'Karate may help you defend youself against an untrained attacker'.

I don't offer Nakamura (who I only know by reputation) or Higaonna (who trained my teachers and whom I've trained with briefly) as "epitomes" - merely as tough fighters who one cannot dismiss as ineffective or as "lacking in realism". It seems to me that most people who attack karate are intent on looking at sport karate kids. If you were in the same room as Higaonna I doubt you'd be waxing lyrical about how theoretical it all was.

Gouges etc. are no recipe for success. But I never said they were. On the other hand karate has a vast array of techniques that are not necessarily power oriented. Saying they can't be "tested" doesn't mean they don't work.